This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you today for République-class battleship, about "a pair of battleships built as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were largely repeated with the four Liberté class, and both designs marked a major increase in size and power over earlier French battleships. Both ships saw service during World War I, but little actual combat, and both were reduced to secondary roles by 1919."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven’t said anything to you in well over a month, what are you talking about? And if me pointing out you were wrong is “harassment” or “bullying”, I suggest you grow up. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Parsecboy! The article you nominated, SMS Nymphe (1863), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
I figured you were not - I see that the other editor has reverted you again; please let it go for the time being, and I will deal with them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case - it's an organizational category for all of the individual year categories where those are necessary, the same as the century parent category. For earlier periods, where the number of ships for which we have articles is low, they're the base level category (like Category:1630s ships). But in the 19th century and later, where we have hundreds (or thousands) of ships per decade, of course there's a need to split the decade into individual years. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
I don’t know what grudge you’re harboring against Deedman, but you need to let it go. He hasn’t done anything to warrant a block since you’ve started posting messages here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Parsecboy! The article you nominated, Deutschland-class battleship, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
As it has been decided without any discussion to enforce a new reference policy on all articles, and that this will be enforced by you, I will no longer edit the affected articles as contributions by other editors are clearly not welcome. Congratulations.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? It's basic referencing guidance to cite chapter authors, it has nothing to do with OWNership. See for instance CMoS and MLA, the two standard formats for historical topics. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
I agree that obsolescent and obsolete are not interchangeable; that's why I corrected it. Obsolescent means "becoming obsolete." This ship was already obsolete. Please don't assume an edit is made in ignorance without asking. All the best. -TPW
Congratulations, Parsecboy! The article you nominated, Liberté-class battleship, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Interesting piece on the Prusso-German screw corvettes (altho the name does sound a bit funny in English). I'm a German history aficionado, but I'd never heard of this transitional phase of naval technology. Congrat's on today's main page play. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I had forgotten that it was going to run today! I agree, it is a bit funny sounding. Unfortunately, when I get around to doing the frigates, it'll have to be a broader categorization, since there were only a handful of screw frigates, so they'll all go into one list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Hi Parsecboy. I have seen, you have reverted my editing in the article SMS Frauenlob. I do not know why this revert was necessary, since there was at least space for one image. I think there was no need to cancel both the sketches. --Andreas (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Andreas; I don't know what device you're using, but on my computer, the second map pushes the Jutland map down into the Notes section, every other image is well below the end of the article. On the wider monitor I have at work, the problem would be even worse. Even with the images currently in the article, the photo of the bell is almost entirely in the notes section. There just isn't room in the article for additional images. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
What if one of the images would be placed to the right, the other to the left? Or inserting a small gallery with both the sketches, maybe with some other? --Andreas (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The images I have uploaded newly from Krieg zur See were reduced in size, what I do not understand. In June you have agreed on WikiProjectShips talkpage, that the image showing the whole battlefield must not to be reduced. Can you please help me to revert these other images from the same book of the Krieg zur See-series? --Andreas (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
A bot picked up on the non-free rationale template you used for the image description. Here's the template you should replace it with:
Once you do that, all you have to do is go down to the File history section on the image page and hit the revert button for the version you uploaded. Parsecboy (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I filled it out. Is it OK?:
File information
Description
Sketch showing maneuvers and actions of a warship unit in a naval battle.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
How can I get in touch with Parsecboy? There are several inaccuracies in the article about the Frauenlob. My husband is the diver who brought the bell up from the Frauenlob, and he brought it to the museum in Kiel and donated it to the museum. We have photos of him with the bell the day he retrieved it from the ship. He was part of the team that located approx 12 of the wrecks from the Battle of Jutland. He is happy to answer any questions 😄 Grannyontheroadofbones (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you've found the right place. What are the problems with the article, specifically? And do you have any publications that support whatever corrections need to be made? Unfortunately, we can't write articles based on personal information, we generally only use reliable, secondary sources. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hog FarmTalk03:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey PM, yeah, I'll try to take a look at it today or tomorrow. Work has been unpleasant lately so I haven't had a ton of time to devote to wiki activities. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. I copied the text of the entire article and scanned it for 'Black Cats' prior to making that change. I should have scanned for 'Black Cat', which would have found the existing link. Again, my apologies.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Cosmao
Can you give me a definition of what we consider a corvette? Conways lists her in the unprotected cruiser section and then helpfully describes her as a screw corvette. Likewise we have a page List of cruisers of France on which she features together with a lot of other unprotected cruisers and thern some of the individual articles title them cruisers and describe them as corvettes French cruiser Châteaurenault (1868). Need some consistency Lyndaship (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Part of the trouble is, "cruiser" is a very squishy term, particularly before the late 19th century when definitions started to become more firm. And "unprotected cruiser" is among the squishiest aspects (since the term didn't originate until the advent of protected and armored cruisers in the 1880s, and thus the term was applied retroactively). After the development of the protected cruiser, every cruising vessel that came before (screw frigates and corvettes, larger gunboats, etc.) came to be lumped into the "unprotected cruiser" category, but quite unlike the similarly retroactive term "pre-dreadnought", it isn't really a specific type of ship, so it's applied as a catch-all to many disparate types of vessels. Literally even the lack of armor isn't a required element, as some vessels that did have a thin deck were rated as "unprotected" cruisers (like the German SMS Gefion).
In any event, I wouldn't give too much thought to the section titles in Conway's - "unprotected cruisers" functions much the same as "capital ships", to my mind. We certainly differentiate more specific types between French ironclad Gloire and French battleship Carnot, for instance, so it only makes sense that we'd do the same with what they describe as a corvette and a protected cruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening response. As I lack the sources or knowledge to make the ship type correct for those listed as unprotected cruisers on List of cruisers of France (it would appear that all other than Cosmao and her sister ship Dupleix have been created as cruisers) I'm going to leave it alone other than to change Cosmao to corvette Lyndaship (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good - at some point, I'll get around to creating/improving the articles and I'll do my best to sort them out as I go ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
LOL, I had a major big brain moment with that edit. Was reading and thought it was correct, nope. It was funny as heck tbh, thought I was smart for a few seconds. Reminds me of my ELA class I took in high school. XD. Literally my brain on statistics final exam study and getting no sleep whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.63.12 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Light cruiser classes
Regardless of what "high quality" sources outside Navy may claim the Navy cites in both articles are quite clear that the two cruisers were separate design and treated as a separate "class" by Navy. You are reverting cited sources, by the agency determining classes regardless of what popular writers may opine. Read my comment in Talk on the St. Louis page. Palmeira (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Except we don't care what the USN calls them, we are a tertiary source that follows what the preponderance of what reliable secondary sources say. And in this case, they treat them as a single class. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The sources are right there in the reference list. You might want to read them. Check the Navy references. They must be addressed and explained. "How do non Navy writers get to change the Navy's own terminology and classification system?" is a good place to start. You need to explain that in the article if you are going to insist the civilian authors somehow could undo the Navy's own use. Readers coming from Navy sources at least deserve an explanation of the discrepancy. I might work with you on getting that explanation into the two articles though I'm off on other things at the moment. I suggest you quit the "threats" — they don't work — and get with answering the issues cooperatively. Palmeira (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I wrote the USS Helena (CL-50) article; of course I read the sources. That why I made the changes to the articles. How else can I make this clear to you: the sources don't support the idea that they were a separate class; I've pretty much only seen that in USN sources, which are not the end-all, be-all in how we write articles. An explanatory footnote would be perfectly acceptable, but writing articles in direct contradiction of pretty much all of the published materials on these ships is not. If you're too busy to edit the articles at the moment, undo your changes and I'll work on a note. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I've taken the time to add cites. The Navy "owns" its nomenclature — not you, me or "great author" somewhere. If there is disagreement with the Navy's designation of designs then the reasons must be given while respecting the Navy's terminology. "We don't care" how Navy defines its own terminology is not an argument because that is just plain, facially not a good reason. Remember, you do not "own" articles you created or largely created. That is a big NO-NO. If there is significant argument on why the Navy parsed the later light cruisers unjustly then explain, don't ignore the fact Navy did so. Palmeira (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding a cite is fine, but leaving the article as it currently reads is unacceptable. How do you not get it? We are not usn.wiki, we follow what sources state. Again, if 90% of the sources state A, we must follow that. And please don't strawman my arguments, as you did [1]; it's rather rude. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I can take a stab at it - I had a look in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, but it didn't have anything on the ship, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the modifications you made on the draft, ty ^^ yea, there aren't many information about Barletta out there, apart from a few italian sources :/ Aloysius0711 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one of the problems I've run into with the Italian ships I've done; there just isn't a lot of coverage of the more obscure ships in English. And I don't read Italian, so I'd have a hard time making use of those sources (though it wouldn't be impossible). I did a quick scan of Google Books yesterday, and saw some things about the bombing during the Spanish Civil War, and some stuff about activities during WWII, so we can piece together at least some sources.
It'd probably be worthwhile to post at WT:SHIPS about it too, as some of the editors there have subscriptions to databases like Miramar, which should be able to help us on details of the ship's commercial history. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good - hopefully we'll get some assistance there. I was just doing a bit more formatting and noticed there's a link to Italian cruiser Taranto, another article I wrote - there's a bit there on the minelaying activities in July 1940 cited to Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea that I assume mentions Barletta (the text I wrote in that article just referred to Barletta and Vieste as "two minelayers"), but I'm traveling at the moment and don't have my copy of Rohwer at hand. I can check next week, but Rohwer is pretty thorough in naming ships, so I'd think that'll be a bit of progress we can make. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
yep, the names of the ships Florence and Italy are in reality Firenze and Italia, I think they were changed during the translation Aloysius0711 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
hey, I scrolled through the edits you did and I noticed that now the draft is an article :) from what I understood now we just have to add images and references, isn't it? Aloysius0711 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yup - I've been adding references here and there as I can find them. We probably ought to make a navigation template for the Italian auxiliary cruisers, and it needs categories too. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
hi again, I was inactive lately and I just noticed that an user described an information on the article as dubious; what can we do? also, about the images there are a lot of them on the Italian Wikipedia page about the ship, which I linked in the first comment :) Aloysius0711 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Parsecboy! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Gog the Mild: - I wrote a longer blurb a little while ago and I could’ve sworn I posted it on the nom talk page, but I’m not seeing it there now (my daughter was hassling me to come play checkers, so my attention wasn’t entirely focused on saving the edit!) - I’m on my phone at the moment but I’ll check my computer later and actually save it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest the article follow the standard Chicago/Wikiepedia MoS format (i.e., "See also" for links to other related Wikipedia articles, "References" to refs/citations; "Bibliography" for published works cited or used as background; "External links" for links to related web sites). Notes and Citations can still fit under references, and it will allow consolidation of "References" and "Further Reading" into one alphabetized "Bibliography." Please convince me otherwise. Boo Boo (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Further, you can subdivide Bibliography, if so desired into Sources and Further Reading. With some articles, Sources is further divided into Primary and Secondary. FWIW. Cheers! - Boo Boo Boo Boo (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
To be frank, I don't have to convince you; WP:CITEVAR is a long-established policy for situations like this. If someone chose a particular style, you shouldn't change it just because you like something else more.
Aw, shucks. You're right. The existing format is fine. Thanks for link to MOS:REFERENCES. Must have forgotten your structure as an approved style. Thanks! Take care! Boo Boo (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
hello, Parsecboy! i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb. is there a source for the statement in the article lead that "Oldenburg participated in all of the major fleet operations of World WarI in the North Sea against the British Grand Fleet"?admittedly, i am not an expert on naval battles of world wari, but i noticed that the Naval warfare of World War I article has a section on the north sea, which explicitly lists the 1914 battle of heligoland bight, the 1915 battle of dogger bank, the 1916 battle of jutland, and the 1917 battle of heligoland bight as major battles. the articles on the 1914, 1915, and 1917 battles appear to mention the participation of the grand fleet, while none of them appear to mention oldenburg. (there is a separate article on the order of battle for the 1915 battle, but it also does not mention oldenburg.) in addition, the oldenburg article does not appear to mention the 1914 and 1917 battles, while it explicitly mentions that the battleship was too late to participate in the 1915 battle (though in this case, it could be argued that oldenburg "participated in... the major fleet operation" despite not fighting in the battle itself).obviously, wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source regarding what the major fleet operations in the north sea were, though i would expect most reliable sources that have a list of the major fleet operations to include at least two of the four listed here. however, i can see the statement in the lead being technically correct if a reliable source considered the battle of jutland the only major battle of world wari in the north sea against the grand fleet, although in such a case, the use of "all of the major fleet operations" may be somewhat misleading, as it suggests that there was more than one.by the way, the statement in the blurb drops the "in the North Sea" qualification, so if the statement in the lead is inaccurate, the one in the blurb probably is as well. dying (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dying - the difference is that all of those battles involved detached squadrons or divisions (or in the case of the Germans at Heligoland Bight, just a handful of patrol ships), not the entire fleet. In a nutshell, every time the High Seas Fleet sortied to conduct an operation against the British (which more often than not, resulted in little to no action, as in the operations of November and December 1914 or April 1918). The naval war was generally fairly anti-climactic, as none of the major naval powers were keen on risking the very expensive battleships they had spent more than a decade building, and so much of the action involved small units carrying out raids (in the North Sea and elsewhere). And the first two German commanders, Ingenohl and Pohl, were among the more cautious, so they tended to end their operations at the first sign of the British fleet, if they encountered anything at all. There were dozens of such operations, but really only two can be said to have resulted in any serious action; the first, to support the raid on Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Whitby in December 1914, and then the Battle of Jutland in 1916. The rest failed to locate British vessels, or as in the case of the Action of 19 August 1916, ended after both sides' submarines torpedoed ships in the opposing fleets before they actually encountered each other. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda! I do like a good winter hike. We were out for one this past weekend in fact, but the stream we crossed over was frozen and covered in snow. Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I also saw icicles like that only that one time. - If you click on songs you get to warmer weather (but I just returned from the escape). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
There are some nice photos there - this in particular caught my eye. When my kids are a bit older, we'll get them out to places like that, but for now it's mainly metro and state parks for us. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! That one was the first in a series of five or so, with the clouds travelling to the right and away withing about a minute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I could really use a trip like that right about now - we're currently getting slathered in ice, with significant snow to follow tonight. At least I'm still working remotely right now, so I don't have to leave the house. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It is sad whenever a long-standing editor leaves the project. I didn't know RexxS (or I don't recall any interactions I had with him), but his was a name I've seen around for a long time. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
